Monday, December 30, 2013

It's been well over a year since four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, and not a single person has been held accountable. Moreover, the folks running the show - President Obama and his minions - refuse to allow any answers to come forth in regard to the important questions. Questions like:

What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi when his place was in Tripoli?

Why were numerous pleas for beefing up security ignored?

Moreover, why was security actually reduced?

And why did Obama not even make any attempt to aid our people?

And, of course, why did the administration put so much effort into the lie about a video being responsible?

A 4-star General by the name of Lyons stated last year that there are reasons for all of the above. He claims the Obama administration willfully and with intent encouraged an abduction of Ambassador Stevens, in an attempt to hold a "hostage exchange" so the enemy could get their "blind sheik" back. If true, this would answer all the questions, above.

And the general's story implies the only reason Stevens was murdered is because the enemy storming the consulate felt betrayed, because despite an order to "stand down" (why?) two of our guys fought, killing dozens of the attackers.

Well, that's the story according to a general, and one that answers all the questions - including the question as to why we have no answers to any of those questions.

When we consider many other facts, things begin to clear up a bit.

Obama was born and raised a muslim
His first official act was to try and appease the muslims in his speech in Egypt
His administration led the way to the fall of the Egyptian secular government
His administration led the way to the fall of Libya, now in enemy hands
His administration pulled our troops from Iraq, now a stronghold for Iran
His administration has insured that Afghanistan is not an ally
His administration kept out of the Syrian uprising, making way for terrorist groups to settle in
His administration spent 2 years in secret negotiations with Iran that get us nothing, yet gives Iran permission to continue producing fissile materials
His administration has consistently been at odds with Israel

AND NOW - remember that lady lawyer who went to prison until 2018 for helping the terrorist "Blind Sheik" smuggle messages to Al Qaeda? Well, the Obama Administration just sprung her from prison. She's free. Go ahead, libs - tell me which side Obama is on..

In fact, it could be said that the Obama administration could not have done more for Islam and jihadists if they had actually been part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group declared as terrorist, with whom Obama spent many hours in the White House.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

There are liberals, and there are far-left liberals. Liberals on the far left are anything but liberals. They are communists and socialistys looking to dominate the world by controlling all individuals from cradle to grave.

In the dictionary, the definition is as follows:

lib·er·al (adj) - broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Now ask yourself - whenever a far-left liberal tries to shut down or penalize opposing viewpoints, would you call that "tolerant of different views"? When a so-called liberal calls respected scientists who dispute the Global Warming theory as "backward deniers", would you call that "broad-minded"? And when these same loons believe that it is okay for personal freedoms to be sacrificed for the sake of some political agenda (TSA, NSA, IRS scandal etc), would you say that is "protecting person freedom"? And when a "liberal" calls the self-proclaimed slut*, Sandra Fluke, a hero, but calls Sarah Palin, who has been true to one man for 24 years a slut, would you call that honest? (*The unmarried Sandra Fluke gave a speech that said she had sex so often she could not afford birth control.)

No. Those "liberals" who espouse such things are not liberals - they are tyrants, with an appreciation of the principles of communism.

So, if you consider yourself a liberal, you may want to re-evaluate your beliefs to see if you are truly a broad-minded person, respectful of others views and rights, and a protector of personal freedom. If not, then you may need to accept what you really are - an intolerant bigot that believes in the right to oppress others and force others into obedience and virtual slavery./

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Is there a conspiracy between the government and certain corporations to control population growth by "forcing" homosexuality? Before you laugh it off, perhaps you should mull over a few things.

Ever since the early 1900's "progressives" have espoused population control. Many have even called to allow euthanasia of the "useless elderly". And ever since the 60's, those same progressives have been pushing "abortion at will". But it goes much deeper than that.

Every educated person knows it to be a fact that soy is full of female hormones. They also know that an infusion of female hormones can actually alter a persons sexuality. That is simple science. Yet, despite that, almost every brand of baby formula is made with soy as a primary ingredient. And almost every major food producers includes soy in their products. Heck, don't take my word for it - read the labels! Pick up ANY jar of "natural mayonnaise" and you will find the first and primary ingedienmt is soy.

The American public is being fed a huge amount of soy, complete with its female hormones. And since it begins with soy formula at birth, is it any wonder that a larger percentage of our children are growing up homosexual? Studies indicate that homosexuality has more than doubled in the last two generations.

Understand - the food manufacturers could not be doing that without the full consent of the FDA. And you certainly know that the FDA is aware of the female hormones in soy.

So here is what we have - progressives (both Democrat and Republican) wanting to control the population. And they have controlled the government 70% of the time since Teddy Roosevelt. They control the FDA which allows, even encourages the wide-scale use of soy in all food products. And virtually every food manufacturer puts soy in almost every product they make. In fact, the two most harmful ingedients for human consumption - soy and wheat - are also the most prevalent. Wheat, as most informed people know, is the primary cause of obesity and many of today's ailments. But just try to find any food (other than natural fruits, veggies and meats) that does not include it.

So, you tell me - is there a correlation? Could it possibly be an intentional conspiracy to control population growth in an over-populated world?

I understand the possible desire to control population, but when you consider our enemies - China, Russia, and every muslim nation - is actively TRYING to over-populate while America dies on the vine, then all I can say is the days of American sovereignty are sorely limited.

Welfare, in its current form is bankrpting America, just as it has bankrupted socialized nations ever since the Roman Empire instituted the dole system. No one wants anyone else to live in destitution, but on the other hand, sane people do not want entitlements that de-incentivize working, or that destroys a person'e sense of self worth. So, is there a solution? I think so.

Consider this:

Economists (not the government) would work together to determine the absolute minimum amount of income necessary for bare survival - without unnecessary amenities, such as ATV's, wide screen plasma TV's and iPads. This, of course would have to be "regionalized", to take into consideration cost differences by region.

Of the number arrived at, the government would assure that every citizen receives at least half fromthe government, while the individual would be required to provide the other half (except for those who cannot provide for themselves due to physical and/or mental incapacity - they would receive the full amount, perhaps more). In other words, equal responsibility - if the individual is unwilling to provide at least half his own needs, the government has no obligation to help him.

To provide incentive to people to better themselves, this "poverty stipend" would only be reduced by $1 for every $2 the individual earns that is over and above the poverty guideline, which eliminates the fear of losing money by working.

EXAMPLE: Let's say the minimum income for a family of 4 in a certain area is $24,000. The family would receive $12,000, in monthly payments of $1,000 each. If the family earns $30,000 in a year, they would still receive $9,000 a year in stipend. The stipend would not disappear altogether until the family is earning $48,000 per year.

There would be NO other government welfare programs, except Medicaid. Social Security would be untouched, as that is not welfare - it is earned by each individual who works.

While this plan may seem harsh, that is what is necessary to end poverty. Governments cannot "buy out" poverty - only productive work can eliminate poverty.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

As an American, and as a Christian, I am getting fed up with the BS from both sides concerning homosexuality. Please bear with me a few moments, and perhaps a few things will become clear enough to help clear the air - which would do us all a lot of good.

The LGBT community spews its hate and intolerance of Christian beliefs, and say we should stay in the closet. They, of all people, should know that it is wrong to be relegated to the "closet". They want to make their beliefs and desires as public as possible (have you seen a "gay pride parade?), but demand that religious people should not have the same right of freedom of speech and the right to express oneself. To them I say BULL!

On the other hand, many Christians are also on the wrong side, as they have been misled by their "leaders". Most Christian (and Muslim) leaders teach that homosexuality is a sin, because God (or Allah) says so. WRONG! Nowhere in the Bible is God attributed with saying homosexuality is a sin. What the Bible DOES say, however, is that homosexuality, and a man laying down with another man is an "abomination". Look it up - an abomination is not necessarily a sin.

A "sin" is a wrongful act and generally considered morally reprehensible. An "abomination" is nothing more than something that is an abnormality of nature. Big difference, folks. If homosexuality were considered a sin by God, there would be Eleven Commandments.

A mutation is an abnormality of nature, but it is not a moral sin. And therein lies the difference.

Homosexuality is an abomination of nature because the primary purpose of life is to continue life - survival of the species. The Bible calls it "going forth to multiply", to propagate. Any living thing that does not propagate is not normal in nature. It is an abomination, by definition. But failing to propagate is not a sin.

So, here is the crux - homosexuality is not a sin, in and of itself, and should be tolerated better by Christians. But on the other hand, homosexuals should not try to put forth that their lifestyle is in any way normal, or natural. It simply is not. And it is a sin to try and force their beliefs down our throats as much as it is a sin for us to try and force our beliefs upon them. Homosexuality does not make them sinners, but being intolerant of those who do not accept their lifestyle is, indeed, a sin. Insisting on others being tolerant of you while being intolerant of them is wrong. Period. And that goes for both sides.

Christians do not - and should not - have to be accepting of the LGBT lifestyles if they find it to be an abomination, but they should accept that people who are different have a right to be different. They should not be condemned for their lifestyle, provided it does not include anything that IS morally reprehensible and sinful, such as child molesting or bestiality.

And the LGBT community does not have to accept the tenets of any religion, but neither should they be intolerant of them, nor call upon religious people to hide in a closet. In fact, THAT would be a sin, since every major religion includes a requirement of its followers to "spread the word" and convert people. To do any less would be a disservice to ones religion.

That said...

Each of us is unique - different from everyone else. If you do not want to be vilified for your differences, do not vilify others for theirs, unless theirs is morally reprehensible. Homosexuality may be abnormal, but it is not morally reprehensible. If you doubt that, try actually READING the Bible yourself.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

America was founded on the principle of liberty for all. And to achieve that, there only needs to be ONE law - if a person is not harming anyone else, is not depriving anyone of their life, property or liberty and is not preventing anyone else from exercising their own liberties, LEAVE THE PERSON ALONE!

Only one law, but the degree to which a person violates it would determine the degree of punishment. So, you would receive much more serious punishment for murder than for stealing a candy bar. But there would be no law against building a garage on your property, or, as happened in Garden City, NY, men ticketed by police for washing their car in their driveway.

America, however, is no longer a free country. Americans have forfeited their liberties right and left, by liberal loons bent on regulating every breath you take. With regulation comes control, and with control comes the power they thirst for.

It may be getting close to a time to once again throw off the yoke of tyranny, as we did in 1776.

A note to government: LEAVE US ALONE! Government only has two functions granted them under the Constitution - the common defense to protect us from foreign enemies, and provide for the GENERAL welfare (not SPECIFIC, INDIVIDUAL welfare). All other "to do's" granted to the government are off-shoots of those two things.

Every American citizen should be free to do whatever they wish, provided it causes no harm to another or to the community in general, and does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

When I was a kid in school (that was a LONG time ago), I was often faced with bullies - those who mostly were bullying others. And I learned how to deal with them - with force. And I noticed a strange phenomenon - whenever I fought a bully and bloodied him, he always ended up becoming a close friend. I believe it has to do with respect for strength and moral terpitude. And I also noticed something else - the kid I was protecting, or helping, would end up treating me with disdain. I am not a shrink, but I believe this result comes from his dislike for being indebted, and a strong feeling that by protecting him, I made him appear small and weak. He then had a need to prove he was not small, nor weak, and would become my enemy in an attempt to prove himself.

Now I look at America's foreign policy. And in case you never noticed, the countries we beat in war invariably became our staunchest allies - we beat the British - twice. We beat Germany. We beat Japan. We beat Italy.

On the other hand, the nations we have befriended have all become our enemies. When the Axis of Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan) tried to take over China and Russia in the late 1930's, we aided China and Russia with weapons and raw materials. We helped them beat back the aggressors. And within one year of the end of WWII, both Russia and China had become our worst enemies.

And look today - we helped Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya. And would you call any of them our allies? Not hardly. We even helped Osama bin Laden beat back the Russians in the 1980's - only to have him become a mortal enemy.

The more I look at history, and its results, the more convinced I am that Mother Nature had it right all the time - survival of the fittest. The strongest. Perhaps instead of cozying up to other nations that are not our allies, we might be better off just beating the crap out of them when they get out of line and do things that adversely affect America.

Kick asses!

There's nothing quite like being respected. As long as the butt-kicking is deserved, and is for the right reasons.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Raising the minimum wage would have a catastrophic effect on the economy because of a little discussed "unintended consequence."

While
the wages for the poor would increase, thereby increasing their buying
power (albeit temporarily), which in turn necessitates an increase in
the cost of goods (which then reduces the buying power), the wages for
the middle class will remain the same. Yet, the increase in the cost of
goods will also affect that middle class, which, in turn, casts them
downward into poverty. That is what happens when the costs increase for
the middle class but their
income does not increase.

The middle class is disappearing and the income gap is widening precisely because of constant increases in minimum wages.

STEP 1 - minimum wage
is increased and the poor get a temporary boost

STEP 2 - businesses must now increase the prices of goods, and/or lay off workers

STEP
3 - the buying power of the poor again decreases due to the increase in
prices. Meanwhile, the middle class, who received no income boost
because they already make more than minimum wage, will have to pay those
higher prices, reducing their buying power, also

STEP 4 - The middle class is no longer middle class, and the income gap widens

The economy works just like physics, and the same laws apply. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Friday, December 6, 2013

President Obama and other progressives talk about "income inequality", and how the world would be a shangri-la if only we had income equality. So, let's take a look at a world with income equality.

Every adult would be assured the same - or nearly the same - income. It would not matter if you flip burgers or work as an astro-physicist. So, that begs an important question - if your incvome is going to be the same as everyone else's, why would you want to waste years and hundreds of thousands of dollars going to college? In fact, what would be your incentive to even finish high school?

And if Steve Jobs knew his income would be the same as everyone else's, do you really think he would have created Apple? More to the point - if his income were the same as yours, how could he possibly afford to create Apple?

It is income inequality that creates a system that works. It is the very basis of competition, and we know it is competition that drives the economy and entrepreneurial pursuits. You want MORE than the average Joe, so you work harder to get it. And you want - and deserve - to be rewarded for your efforts.

In a world of income equality, there is no incentive to get educated, work, or create. So the government must then step in and try to FORCE people to work, get educated and create. And we saw what a failure that was in the Soviet Union. In fact, it has failed in every society that attempted it.

But let's say for the sake of argument that everyone is provided the same amount of money to start with. Just how long do you think it would be before the lazy, uneducated people would lose their share to those who hustled and worked? According to some studies, it would only take less than a year for everything to be back the way it is. The ne'er-do-wells would spend their share on toys, gadgets and crapola, while the smart folks would invest in creating products that would lure the ne'er-do-wells to spend their money.

That is human nature. And try as you might, you are not going to change human nature.

In Indianapolis, a newly minted gun-control activist, Shannon Watts, founder of the organization Moms Demand Action for Gun
Sense, wants to pressure businesses, especially national chains, to ban guns.
"Businesses have to make a choice," Watts said in a recent interview. "They can
side with the gun lobby, or they can choose to protect their customers."

Now, doesn't that sound reasonable? Not to people with any common sense! Here is what these gun control nuts do not seem to comprehend:

1) Any person intent on murder is not going to be deterred by any law, rule or policy. If stores ban guns, the killers will still bring them in. As a point of fact, almost all mass shootings occur in places where guns are not allowed - schools, for example. The law or policy does not prevent a homicidal maniac from committing murder.

2) By banning guns, activists are advertising to homicidal psychopaths that this place is easy pickings. No one here is armed, so there is no one to stop you.

3) If gun owners were encouraged to come to a store armed, there are two possibilities - a) psychopaths will go elsewhere to murder innocent people, and the store owners are protecting their customers, or b) if a homicidal maniac does come into the store, there may be someone who can and will stop him.

The point is simple - no gun control law or policy will prevent a maniac from being a maniac. Such laws only create "green pastures" for killers. It's like saying, "Hey, psychos, we're unarmed. Come and get us."

Bear in mind, too, that the cities with the highest gun crime rates are those with the strictest gun control laws, and the places where guns are formally banned (like schools) are the primary targets of these killers.

So, whereas everyone already knows these things, why do the gun control nuts continue to push gun control? The answer is right there in front of you - CONTROL. These people do not want to control guns - they want to control YOU!

That is the one, singular underlying premise of progressive liberalism. Control. Control what you eat, what schools you can attend, what drugs are legal, whether you can smoke pot but not cigarettes, whether you can put an addition on your home - they even control masses of people through entitlements.

Friday, November 29, 2013

In yet another attempt to make it look like there is widespread support for ObamaCare, the far-left liberal hacks at Reuters once again conducted a bogus poll, which was once again quickly promoted by the farther-left Huffington Post. This time, the "poll" claims that "The broad support for the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare,
emerged in interviews last week in Dallas with more than 20 cardiologists."

But here is a critical fact that the poll - and HuffPost, are conveniently leaving out.- there are approximately 60,000 cardiologists in America. A poll of only 20, taken at a convention that was attended mostly by liberal doctors, only tells us that ObamaCare is not widely supported at all. In fact, Hannity had more than 20 doctors on his show Wednesday, and almost none of them supported ObamaCare.

Moreover, the Reuters "poll" offered no substantiation. There is no way to check on their "results".

Sunday, November 24, 2013

There is a battle going on in Texas schools over whether or not Creationism or Evolution should be taught in the schools. And the idiots at Huffington Post thought it would be a good idea to get a liberal "science guy" to offer his take on the issue. So, they asked Bill Nye, the supposed "science guy".

Here is what Nye said, which only serves to prove his ignorance (and that of many "scientists", liberals and atheists):

"Everyone should take a moment and think what it will mean to raise a generation
of students who might believe that it is reasonable to think for a moment that
the Earth might be 10,000 years old."

And here is why it proves his ignorance: Neither Christianity nor the Bible indicates the Earth is only 10,000 years old. On the contrary. However, since Nye is so ignorant in matters of religion, he, like others of his ilk have been conned into believing that Christians do believe the Earth to be 6,000-10,000 years old. Most do not.

The concept that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000 years old is not based on anything from the Bible, but rather from a liberal atheist in the 1970's who, in an effort to prove religion is bunk, decided to "add up" the timelines given in the King James Bible, and by those measures he erroneously determined that, according to the Bible, the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

And so, many liberals and atheists alike use that bogus calculation to belittle religious people. But the joke is on them, because that "timeline" is as phony as the atheist who formulated it.

Certainly, if you add the times and ages from the King James Bible - or any English translation of the Bible - it would appear that Moses lived to be over 900 years old and the Earth is only 6,000 years old. But that is only due to the errors in translating from ancient Hebrew to English.

In the ORIGINAL Scriptures, written in Hebrew, the world was created in seven "yom". The word yom is used in ancient Hebrew to depict any time period - it could mean a moment, a day, a year, an eon. And while King James decided arbitrarily it would mean "day", the KJV Bible leads ignorant people to believe the Earth was created in 7 days, not because the Bible says so, but because KING JAMES said so! The reality is that "yom" could have just as easily meant eons, ages or any other time frame. And THAT makes more sense.

In the same vein, Moses lived 900+ "yom". Again, King James decided that meant 900 years. More likely, however, it meant 900 moon cycles (months) which would equate to 75 years. Now, doesn't that make more sense?

The point is, the Bible does not claim the Earth to be only a few thousand years old. Only liberals and atheists determined to undermine religion make such an assumption so they can push their sin-riddled agenda. Which proves that the "illuminati" like Bill Nye are just ignorant morons who have been misled by those with a nefarious agenda.

Now, back to the battle in Texas - it is my humble opinion that the schools should teach both theories - evolution and creation. After all, it is the task of schools to teach children to think - not to do their thinking for them. And in all probability, both theories are valid - neither one excludes the other. Surely, God is at least as smart as Procter & Gamble who, after creating a product would ensure the product evolves over time with a "new, improved" version. If there is a God, he most certainly would have created life with the ability to evolve as the environment changes. As for evolution without creation, simply ask yourself one question...

"Since only living things can evolve, where did everything else that is non-living come from?" Or this question, "If life evolved, what did it evolve FROM? Where did that very first "living thing" come from?"

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Albuquerque voters appear to be on the verge of defeating a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks unless the mother's life is at serious risk.

A couple of points I believe should be considered - whenever a referendum measure is on a ballot, it tends to turn out more voters who are opposed to it, so I suspect the bill would pass if more voters had taken the time to get off their arses and vote.

But more important is this, from the news at HuffPost:

"Today, Albuquerque voters have rejected a measure that would have
compromised women's health and safety and stripped them of their ability to make
complicated, personal, and often very difficult medical decisions," Nancy
Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a
statement.
"But in spite of this victory, this vote illustrates the very real threat
that essential women's health care continues to face from those who seek to make
it illegal, indifferent to the devastating consequences that women will
suffer"

That statement by Northrup is absolutely false on so many points. First, the ban would not compromise a woman's health or safety - exceptions were made for those issues, so Northrup is being intentionally deceptive. But the part of her moronic statement that really gets in my craw is the part where she talks about "the consequences that women would suffer." To that I must ask, "What about the consequences to the aborted baby who forfeits its life on the whim of the mother?" Northrup has no concern for the true victim. After all, which life is being altered the most by an abortion? The life being ended, of course.

Ever notice that every person in favor of abortion is already alive, and has no need to fear it? I wonder how many of them would still be for abortion if it were made retroactive, and they could end up forfeiting THEIR lives at the whim of another.

Friday, November 8, 2013

They're at it again! Democrats, supported by President Obama, are pushing for another increase in the minimum wage to $10.10/hr. They are determined to shove more people into poverty, because that is precisely what a minimum wage does, every time.

I simply cannot fathom that anyone would be unable to understand a simple fact of economics - if you raise the cost of PRODUCTION, you increase the COST of product to consumers. Unlike Uncle Sam, businesses cannot simply print money. If they have to pay more for salaries, they have to charge more for their products and/or lay off people. Neither is good for the economy. And I suspect the Democrats know that.

So, since it is unlikely anyone is really so stupid as to not comprehend that rising costs result in rising prices, perhaps we should assume there is a more nefarious motive behind the Democrats incessant push for ever-increasing minimum wage.

What, then, could be the motive? Dare I suggest socialism?

I have made this statement many times - liberals certainly want socialism in America - they have said so, and I take them at their word on that. And the only way to convince Americans that socialism is needed would be if you can make capitalism collapse. As Saul Alinski and Karl Marx said, step #1 is to bankrupt the treasury.

Look! A $17 TRILLION dollar debt! People losing full-time work and only getting part-time. ObamaCare devastating portions of the economy. Trillions in government waste and fraud. Mega-billions doled out to Obama supporters. A push to increase minimum wage to force prices higher. Over 3000 new (and costly) regulations since Obama has been in office. An unemployment rate that has exceeded the norm for over 5 years. The list is nearly endless...

The headline of this post probably should be "Democrats DO understand simple economics - and plan on using it against America."

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

On one of Sally Kohn's blog posts about ObamaCare and how the "right lies" about it, she writes, "Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a Ferrari plan in the individual health
insurance exchange. At least 6.4 million Americans will pay less than $100 per month for coverage in the Obamacare exchanges"

Actually, Sally, you are 100% provably WRONG! No surprise there.

First, the fact is that ObamaCare requires EVERY policy to be a "Ferrari", with every conceivable option - even those not needed. Every 70 year old man is REQUIRED to carry maternity coverage, and every woman is required to carry prostate coverage. When a policy has all the options, regardless of what a person wants or needs, that is a "Ferrari" policy. But then, you cannot expect a narrow-minded liberal to comprehend such simple logic. They cannot understand anything that is contrary to their agenda.

And as to her statement that "6.4 million Americans will pay less than $100 per month for coverage", while technically that may be true, the premise upon which it is based is false. First, 6.4 million Americans represents a mere 2% of the population. Second, the only reason they pay under $100/month is because taxpayers are paying for the rest of their medical needs (the people paying only $100/month are not taxpayers - they are among the 49% of all Americans who pay NO income taxes).

Sally Kohn is typical of many people on the left - unable to be honest, and unable to win an argument on merit.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

It amazes a lot of folks why Obama has any popularity left in spite of all the scandals - there have been about 2 dozen - and despite the current economic mess and the ObamaCare debacle.

It is actually quite simplt - the liberal media helps him to deflect the blame, and Obama, himself, is very good at shifting blame. He creates a problem, then says he is angry that the problem exists and is working tirelessly to fix it. And idiot voters believe him. Some examples:

Although the president is supposedly in charge, "I am going to get to the bottom of Fast & Furious and those responsible will be held accountable". Nope. Never happened. In fact, he gave Holder cover by executive order.

And, "I am going to get to the bottom of this IRS thing and those responsible will be held accountable." Nope. Never happened. In fact, the people in charge of the scandal got promoted.

And, "I am going to get to the bottom of this Benghazi thing and those responsible will be held accountable". Nope. Never happened. No o0ne has ever been held accountable, and Obama gave cover to Hillary, the one who WAS accountable.

And, "This sequester created by Republicans is a bad thing and we must end it." The sequester was, in fact, Obama's idea.

And, "We'll get to the bottom of this ObamaCare website debacle that cost taxpayers 634 million bucks and those responsible will be held accountable." Wanna bet?

As I said, there have been nearly two dozen such scenarios, where the president, supposedly a leader and in charge, feigns ignorance of what is going on, then says he will fix it with no intention of doing so.

And to think, more than half of all voters voted for this guy - TWICE! What does that say about the average American voter? Uninformed. And why are they uninformed? Because they get their news and bogus facts from liberal media.

I'll give you a clue - it's not the Democrats in the Senate. It's not the Republicans in the House. And it is not the clown in the White house.

It is...wait for it!

It is US, the American people. WE elected those morons, and will probably elect most of them AGAIN. WE are the ones who want them to bring home the pork in order to get re-elected, and that pork adds trillions to the debt over the years. WE are the ones who want all the "free stuff" and entitlements. WE are the ones who want cuts, as long as those cuts do not affect US.

Thomas Jefferson said it correctly - every people gets the government they deserve. And we deserve this travesty. Yes, the ones who elected them, and the rest who stayed home and did not vote.

Yes, it is we, the people who are to blame.

81% of the people say the government is headed in the wrong direction. But what do you want to bet that 81% do not go to the polls next November and vote for something better?

Throughout the country, poll after poll says the majority of people blame Republicans for the current crisis in Washington because of the Tea Party Representatives who are fighting to end ObamaCare. And I do not doubt that to be true. But to those moronic pundits on both sides who claim that those conservative Republicans have hurt the party, they are SO wrong.

Yes, the people might be angry with republicans now, but most sane people know that Obamacare will be so oppressive, so onerous and so expensive to individuals and families that it will hurt the people more than Republicans are doing. And the people will finally realize that Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and other Tea Party politicians were actually fighting the GOOD fight, trying to protect us from this abomination of socialism, even though they knew it could end their careers. For the first time in generations, we have politicians who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the nation.

As ObamaCare unrolls, it will unravel, and Americans everywhere will be harmed. And when that happens, Americans everywhere will look at the true conservatives in Washington as the heroes, not pariah, of the Republican party. And the "establishment" GOP had better jump on board or get the Hell out of the way!

The only thing that can save America is if that happens before the 2014 election.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Under the guise of the government shutdown, visitors to some of our national parks have been threatened with arrest for tresspassing. The posted signs also make that claim. However...

All National Parks are owned by We, the People. We ARE the government. Of, by and for the people. It is our land. We own it - government merely maintains it for us. So by what authority do they threaten arrest for trespassing? Who the Hell do these ObamaCrats think they are, anyway?

Dear Mr. Obama & Minions - you work for US, not vice versa. You do not RULE us - you SERVE us. We are the Masters, you are the servants. And you had damn well better start remembering that.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Notice that the title says "the RIGHT thing" - it does not say "the POPULAR Thing."

There is a huge difference. The "right thing" is often unpopular. Conservative
/Republicans fight to constrain government's power over people and the excessive spending will adversely affect people on welfare, food stamps, government employees (almost half of all workers) and others. But everyone except liberals pretty much know it is the right thing to do.

That said, on to the proof that it is the right thing. Recent headlines in the news say things like...

Unions, the media and liberal democrats all have one thing in common - they want to destroy the Republican party so they lose the House in 2014. And they want that more than anything else in the universe because they understand that, representing a small majority of this nation, it is the liberals last chance to push forth their agenda to turn America into a socialist (i.e. "social justice") nation. They know they will never again have a chance to control all three parts of government. It's now or never.

When the enemies of good, small, effective government rant against you as much as they are today, then you know conservative Republicans are on the right track.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Seattle mayor Mike McGinn (D) came out as an avid supporter of the $15 per hour minimum wage idea.

These liberals should abstain from commenting on financial matters - none of them understand them. They can't. Science tells us liberals think primarily with the right (creative) side of the brain, while conservatives think primarily with the left (analytical) side. Liberals are very bad at understanding concepts such as economics, or anything that requires thinking or planning ahead.

And Mayor McGinn is just another liberal intent on proving that out.

A $15/hour minimum wage would completely destroy our economy, even though on the surface it sounds like it would be a boost. But, as liberals can never figure out, nothing is as it appears.

If the minimum wage is increased, people who provide products and services must increase their prices in order to pay the higher wages. A $3.00 loaf of bread becomes a $4.00 loaf of bread. A $15.00 meal at a restaurant becomes a $22.00 meal, to pay the higher wage of the waitstaff. Everything you buy will be more expensive. And what do you do when everything gets more expensive? You have to either cut back, which reduces consumption, which in turn reduces production resulting in layoffs which hurts the economy, or you have to ask for a raise to cover the increased cost of living, in which case the producers must again raise their prices and the cycle keeps churning upward. Either way, it harms the economy.

If there had never been a minimum wage law and we had allowed free markets to determine prices, values and wages, everything would be so much cheaper these days, and the economy would soar.

But you say, "But hey, Bill, wouldn't that keep those in menial jobs in poverty?"

My answer - they are in poverty, anyway. And they will stay there until THEY do something to push forward. Poverty is not caused by a lack of money. It is caused by a way of life; a lack of education; a lack of effort; a lack of determination. Being broke is a temporary condition. Being poor is a lifestyle choice. Yes, a choice. Don't feed me the bogus argument that uneducated people in ghettos don't have a choice. They do. They can put one foot in front of the other until they are out of the ghetto. They can seek grants for adult education, and spend time in the library learning, instead of wasting time on the couch watching dumbass reality shows. Just because they don't, or won't does not mean they can't.

In 1990, I was destitute and homeless. And it was determination, education and effort that put me into the upper middle class. It was not welfare, minimum wage or any form of "social justice".

The low wage jobs are necessary in a sound economy. It is a place where people can begin their own climb. That's why they call them "entry level" jobs. It affords anyone, even idiots, an opportunity to get ahead, provided they work at it.

What happens with a $15/hour minimum wage? For one thing, those people will stop trying to get ahead - the minimum wage has done that for them. Until the after effects come. Then, $15/hour will be no different from $7/hour is today, because economies level out. The reality - you can earn $7.00 an hour in a world where it costs $20,000 to live, or you can earn $15.00 an hour in a world that costs $40,000 to live. There is no difference. None.

Why do you think liberals have to keep raising the minimum wage? If it was doing what liberals believe it should do, then there should be no need to keep jacking it up.

Mayor McGinn, WAKE UP! You do not have a clue, so unless you are willing to think thiongs through to the unintended consequences, perhaps you should just stay out of the conversation. You can be quiet and be thought a fool, or open your mouth and prove it.

Most people wonder at some point in their life whether or not Man will become extinct, and if so, when. While no one knows the answer, there are some good possibilities based on several factors.

According to the well-known "Doomsday Argument", Mankind has a 95% chance of having reached our half-way point, which in layman's terms means we will be around for another 10,000 years. Hm-m-m.

According to some scientists, however, who have calculated the number of people the planet can reasonably support (food, water and other resources), they seem to think the maximum population could be around 10 billion. And based on current levels and projections, the Earth will hit 7 billion on or around Oct. 31, and, if its projections are correct,
we'll reach a population of 9 billion by 2050, and 10 billion by
2100.

The reason for the slow-down can be attributed to a decreasing reproduction rate among humans.

Those scientists figure when the population hits that mark, it will result in a mass, world-wide famine that would wipe us out, as there will be too many mouths open and not enough groceries to shove down all those necks.

I doubt that, for several reasons. First, if a famine did hit, and it wipes out large portions of the population, it would reach the point where there will be more resources left for those who remain. It would be a set-back, like the black plague, but doubtful it would be an extinction event. But I doubt even that will be what happens (though it could well be a part of it).

As we approach saturation of humankind, and long before we hit 10 billion, the growing scarcity of resources - water, fuel, food etc. - will cause nations to go to war. Wars that would kill millions, perhaps billions. And this, too, would reduce the burden on resources.

But setting all of that aside, there is still another scenario. According to the original Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible, when we reach the point where there are as many people living as the number of all those that have passed, that will be the end. Why? Maybe because the Earth and all of its creatures have a finite amount of materials, and once humankind takes up those materials, there is nothing left to sustain us. Or maybe there is just so much "life force" available - that it, too, is limited.

For example, let's say your family of 4 has 1000 kernels of corn. There is no more, anywhere. That's it! Normally, you could each only eat 200 (800 in all) and save the remaining 200 for growing more. Sustainability. But now lets say you have one more child, and that child also eats 200. Now all the corn is being consumed, with nothing left over to grow another crop. Starvation instead of sustainability.

Once mankind, itself, makes up most of the Earth's resources, extinction follows. The fact remains that the laws of physics state that matter can be converted, but it cannot be created nor destroyed. There is a finite amount of matter on Earth. When it is all being used simultaneously, we're in BIG trouble. Once you have used up every grape, there can be no more wine.

Estimates show that the living population and the past population should equal out sometime in the next 50-400 years, give or take a day or so.

And that is precisely why Man has been looking to - and trying to get to - the stars ever since the Tower of Babel. It is our only hope of staving off extinction. Colonizing, mining and otherwise obtaining more matter - food, water, fuel etc. And ROOM. We take up a lot of space - not just our bodies, but also our homes, schools, roads, businesses, utilities - and even cemeteries. If you think rush-hour traffic is a b*itch now, wait until the population doubles, but the amount of land does not!

So, what do I think we have time for?

I think we have time for another martini. Seriously, though, I would not want to make a prediction because there are too many unknown variables. Will we get hit with a new plague? What about a nuclear war? Or slammed by a space rock the size of Manhattan? Will our rate of infertility keep increasing? Or the rate of non-child-producing gays grows exponentially? Ice age? Global warming?

I'll be satisfied if I just make it through another April 15th tax deadline...

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

On May 9 the Department of Education, in concert with the (in)justice Department sent a letter to the University of Montana. that declares that, from now on, freedom of speech will be curbed, or else.Concerning "sexual assault", the Obama Administration, without consent, declared that from now on, even offensive speech can be considered sexual assault. Until May 9, sexual harassment had to be "objectively offensive", using the standard of a "reasonable person." The Administration removed those requirements. Now, according to the DOE and DOJ, you can be found guilty of sexual harassment if you SAY anything that offends someone else.

It seems the Obama Administration has decided arbitrarily to insert a new "Constitutional Right" where it does not exist - a right to not be offended.

Well, Mr Obama, Holder and the rest of you liberal tyrants - YOU and YOUR actions OFFEND ME! So maybe you should STOP offending me.

Frankly, there is, and never can be a "right to not be offended", simply because everything on the planet offends someone, somewhere. Atheists offend religious people - should we make it a crime to be an atheist? That sculpture of the Madonna covered in elephant dung offends many - should the sculptor go to prison?

This is a direct attack on the First Amendment right to free speech. Liberals seem to like free speech only when it is speech they approve of. By definition, that is the opposite of free speech.

So, according to the Obama Administration, if you ask someone for a date and they are offended by your request, you are guilty of sexual harassment.

Such restrictions on "offensive" speech attempts in the past have been rejected by the courts, simply because, as stated earlier, anyone can consider anything "offensive."

The DOE and DOJ do not want to adhere to the decision of the Supreme Court (davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1999) that determined the definition of harassment is "a targeted pattern of serious onlgoing discriminatory behavior". Instead, the Obama Administration, true to their practice of tyranny, have decided that harassment can be any innocent remark.

People of America, it is time to stop the dictatorial, illegal actions coming out of Washington and out of agencies run by unelected officials. It's time to kick these bums to the curb and take our country back. After all, this is supposed to be the "land of the free", but we will lose that if we do not again become "home of the brave." Stand up and be counted!

Checked out the "exchanges" and what ObamaCare really offers. Man, the Democrats are really putting the screws to young people - the same young fools who elected him, so perhaps it is poetic justice.

It appears that anyone under the age of 34 will pay higher premiums, in order to "level the playing field" and picking up the tab for older, sicker folks. But that's only the beginning! Those same young people who will be paying more for insurance will have a deductible of as much as $5,000 each year!

Most young people never have $5000 in medical expenses every year, so the result is that young people will pay all, or almost all of their own medical care costs out of pocket, even though they are paying higher premiums for insurance that covers nothing for them. They are getting screwed at both ends!

But, Hey!~ They elected this socialist moron, expecting him to be some sort of "new" politician.

Yeah, he's new alright. He's a corrupt, Chicago-mob-style politician who dares to be king, instead of president. He will tell any lie to fulfill his socialist agenda, and young people are so much easier to fool than older, wiser people (like the Tea Party).

As for me, I will not be participating in ObamaCare no matter what. Even if they offered to PAY me to take the insurance, I would refuse, for two reasons.

#1 - I do not believe entitlements are good, and certainly do not believe a government we know we cannot trust (i.e. I.R.S scandal, NSA scandal, Benghazi scandal etc.) would have control over my health

#2 - I will not provide every ounce of personal info to the government - medical records, financial records etc.- because the government cannot keep any info safe. Need I remind anyone of WikiLeaks, Snowden and the Pentagon getting hacked?

This is getting really old. It seems Democrats - and more particularly female Democrats - just can't help themselves and keep blathering about the supposed "war on women", "war on children" and "war on just about everyone" that the Republicans are supposedly waging.

The reality ios the opposite, as I proved in an earlier post. It is the Democrats that wage war on minorities, the poor, the children and women. But I digress..

Today, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told reporters that the Senate will unequivocally reject a provision sent to them by House Republicans this weekend that would allow employers to deny women birth control coverage for moral reasons. "It truly defies logic."

Now for what these partisan blatherers left out - birth control violates the religious tenets of many people. It isa "moral" thing. The only thing Republicans are saying is that in the event an employer objects for religious reasons to provide contraception, the government has no right to force the employer to violate his/her religious beliefs. In fact, the First Amendment is very clear on that - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In short, the government may not infringe on anyone's religious liberty. The government simply cannot legally force any citizen to go against their religion. Period.

A note to those Senators - it's not about women's health, or even contraception. It's about protecting the religious liberty of every citizen to choose for themselves what their religious beliefs allow them to support.

But then, these Senators - and most Democrats in Washington - have no use for the Constitution except when it benefits them. They are all for eliminating Christmas in public, claiming the so-called "separation of church and state". But when a Christian WANTS separation between church and state and wanmts government to stay out of their religious beliefs, those same Senators say "NOPE"!

Senators Boxer, Stabenow and Hirono are hypocrites. That are also anti-Christian and anti-Constitution. As such, they have no business being Senators, as every Senator must pledge to UPHOLD the Constitution, whether they like it or not.

Friday, September 27, 2013

In spiute of several proven facts that the Earth is currently in a cooling mode (Antarctica has increasing ice mass, the most ever seen, and the mean temp of the Earth has been cooling for at least 16 years), the Global Warming fanatics insist on pushing their agenda.

"The INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) of the United Nations states "Human influence on the climate system is clear." A new
report by the IPCC says it is extremely likely that humans have been the
dominant contributor to observed warming. In numbers, "extremely likely" means a
probability of at least 95 percent. The report warns the impact of greenhouse
gas emissions would linger for centuries and that the Earth is set for further
warming, sea level rising and more. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
says the report provides new evidence for governments to take action. "This new
report will be essential for governments as they work to finalise an ambitious
legal agreement on climate change in 2015." A recent U.N. deal stipulates that
governments reduce emissions by the end of 2015. Outside the conference,
activists say the world must stop arguing and start acting. (SOUNDBITE)
(English) AVAAZ CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, LUIS MORAGO, SAYING: "We are very worried
that there is a false media debate, spreading doubt about climate change, but
today with the report coming from the IPCC, scientists are telling us that it's
95 percent certain that climate change is manmade and is leading to a
catastrophe unless we act now." The report also said temperatures are likely to
rise by up to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century"

Thinking people realize that this report by the IPCC is pure bunk, but the question is "Why" do they continue?
The answer is in their statement. It's all about the money. LOTS of it. The U.N. wants to bill rich countries (i.e. the United States) and give that money to other, lesser countries (i.e. mostly our enemies). It's income redistribution on a global scale, with Americans picking up the tab. As long as they can scare other idiots into believing global warming will kill us all, they would have carte blanche to rob us blind.
Bear in mind, most of the nations in the U.N. are enemies of the U.S., enemies of capitalism and enemies of democracy.

But hey, just for kicks, let's say global warming is actually real. What would be the real effects? A boon to Mankind. Throughout history, every warming trend has resulted in great strides for Mankind, and every cooling trend has resulted in devastation. If anyone doubts that, just Google LIA (Little Ice Ice), which ran from the 1300's until the 1800's. And note, too, that over the life of the Earth, over 85% of the time the Earth's mean temperature is ordinarily much higher than today. In other words, a warm planet is natural and normal.

Anyone who actually studies such things, rather than just letting liberal morons brainwash them would know these things. But alas! Most Americans do not bother learning the truth - they prefer to get hand-fed their "facts."

Thursday, September 26, 2013

We all know how far-left the Huffington Post is (Arianna Huffington is a declared socialist), so it is not surprising that polls emanating either from them or those they agree with would be, shall we say, corrupt?

Well, now they have a poll conducted by the far-left University of California that says a majority of gun dealers support expanded background checks.

Setting aside the liberal bent of the pollsters for a moment, let's look at their "data":

1) They identified 9700+ dealers in 43 states, but only sent their survey to 1600+ - I would wonder how they determined WHICH 1600 would get surveys

2) Of the 1600, only 590 responded. When you consider that most people only respond to surveys they agree with, I would not be surprised to find that the bulk of the remaining 63% were OPPOSED to expanded background checks

3) Of the 590 respondents, only 327 said they support expanded background checks.

So, let's see - of 9700 dealers, of which 1600 were contacted and only 590 responded, only 327 support expanded background checks.

Even if we assume that is 327 of 1600 (instead of the 9700), that's still only 20%. So I find it disturbing that UofC and HuffPost somehow consider that a "majority".

I have often said you can make any poll or set of statistics "prove" anything you want. To substantiate that, I had two people run a poll on alcoholism. One was stationed outside a Baptist church, and one outside a popular bar. The one outside the chuirch indicated that no one is an alcoholic, while the one outside the bar showed that everyone is an alcoholic.

And the far-left is really, really good at skewing polls and statistics.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Huffington Post/AOL decided to runm a poll on ObamaCare, asking readers if they though the Republicans were right to try and defund it. Being far-left liberal, HuffPost assumed THEIR readers would mostly vote that Republicans are wrong.

Here are the current results of the poll:

58% agree with Republicans that "ObamaCare will have a devastating effect ".
28% Said ObamaCare was the best solution
14% said it's "too early to tell."

All I can say is, HuffPost should be careful about what they ask for. They just may get the truth!

Friday, September 20, 2013

A friend of mine approached me a bit ago with a huge issue. He earns about $40,000 per year - too much to get any substantial subsidy for Health Care under ObamaCare. He is self-employed, and therefore his health costs are completely on him. Insurance for him and his wife would run nearly $15,000 per year.

He simply cannot afford to be forced into that. His mortgage, alone, is $18,000 per year, leaving him with about $22,000. Of that, almost $6,000 a year for all utilities (heat, electricity, cable, DSL, phone etc.), leaving about $16,000. If he were to buy insurance, he would only have about $1000 a year for groceries, clothing, transportation (car, gas, oil, insurance, registration, tax), life insurance and all other normal costs of existence.

Yet, ObamaCare mandates he get insurance or pay a hefty fine.

Just another reason ObamaCare should be dumped, and a better system developed. A system that lowers the cost, rather than putting everything in the hands of an incompetent and wasteful government.

QUESTION: If you could safely travel back to a time when Adolph Hitler was a child, and could get away with killing him, then return to your own time safely - would you do it?

If you answer "yes", you might just be a bigger monster than Hitler, inadvertently. Let's take a brief look at just one of the consequences...

70 million people died due to World War II. Had they lived, and each had an average of just 2 children by 1970, and each of those had 2 children by 2000, each of whom had 2 children by 2025, the population of the world will have increased by a whopping 2.7 BILLION souls. That's an increase of nearly half what the current population is. And by 2050, the world population would exceed 16 billion.

At 6 billion today, we are having a difficult time feeding everyone. If the population triples, more and more land must be used for homes, workplaces, schools, roads etc, leaving even less land available for growing food. Food supplies would dwindle as the population rises.

Famine would spread, and as people perish from starvation, more disease would visit us. It could make the Black Plague look like a church picnic in the park. Billions could - would - perish.

And all because you went back and snuffed out Hitler. Who, then, would be tasked to travel back in time to murder YOU?

The good Lord knew what he/she was doing when we were created to be aggressive mortals. Imagine if no one ever died in ANY war, from Day One. Mankind would have become extinct hundreds of years ago, whereas the population would have reached tens of billions long before technology or science could have ever hoped to provide answers.

In order to survive, life must work in cycles, and those cycles include death. Too many rabbits results in more wolves being able to survive, resulting in a glut of wolves, which, in turn, reduces the rabbit population. As rabbits disappear, the wolves starve, and now it is their turn to see a reduction in their number. As wolves die off, rabbits are once again able to proliferate. And so the cycle goes. It may sound cruel, but it is the only way that life can sustain itself, and maintain a balance. Ebb and flow, just like the tide.

By trying to eliminate war - or even death - Mankind is inadvertently striving to make himself extinct, rushing headlong into a mass destruction of his own making.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Think about this - imagine you are a conservative. You elect people to do a job. Those elected representatives decide they cannot win the fight, so they give up (as Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly suggest on the battle to defund ObamaCare).

Now tell me - if your reps are not looking out for you, and are not fighting the good fight - are you going to vote in 2014? Unlikely. Why bother, if they are not going to even try to do the job you hire them to do?

On the other hand, assume those reps do fight the fight, knowing, as did those brave men at the Alamo, that they would lose. But they fight because they stand on principle. Will you go to the polls in 2014 and help elect MORE like them? Of course you would.

And that is the point that people like O'Reilly and Rove just do not comprehend. They would have encouraged the men at the Alamo to surrender. "You can't win, Davey Crockett - run and hide" would be the mantra of the pundits. And the war would have been lost. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California would belong to Mexico to this day. (Yeh, I know - California is an appendage of Mexico, anyway).

Sometimes you have to fight a battle you know you will lose, in order to win the war. Sure, the MEDIA will vilify the Republicans. They will do that no matter what Republicans do. But REPUBLICANS around the country will rally and hit the polls next year if they know their representatives are fighting, and taking hits for them.

O'Reilly & Rove take note - if Republicans cave on this, they will lose the House in 2014. But if they fight, even though they lose the fight, they will gain seats in both the House and the Senate.

A single battle does not make a war, but not fighting that battle can cost you the war. If you want to take back America, the first thing you need to do is get your people to the polls. To do that, you need to give them a REASON.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Again the Federal Reserve has decided to keep the stock market propped up with phony fiat money and artificially low interest rates. This, in turn, makes the market go up. And that is a REAL problem!

When the market is based on phony rates and the printing of phony money, it is a house of cards. The minute the Fed decides to stop - and sooner or later they must - the market will tank so badly it will make the recession of 2007 look like a church picnic.

Moreover, it is the liberals - the people who are creating this new "bubble" - who complain the most about income inequality, and how the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. Yet it is their own stupidity that creates that situation - or does anyone really think it is POOR people who are pumping money into the markets? Not likely. The rich are getting richer because the Fed is propping up Wall Street in order to try and make Obama look good. So, the rich get richer...thanks to liberals who simply cannot help themselves - they must try to destroy capitalism by whatever method they can, because their socialist agenda cannot survive in a capitalist society.

The short take - eventually, the Fed must back off. When they do, the economy of the United States will tank, perhaps beyond repair. And then the socialists will move in, making promises to all the wailing masses. And in desperation, the masses will succumb to socialism in an attempt to make things better.

They will not get better. Not if socialism takes over.

If you have read the writings of socialist Saul Alinsky, you know that, for liberal progressives, the first step is to destroy capitalism by bankrupting the nation. Look around, people. A 17 trillion dollar debt, unfundable entitlements, phony money being printed, interest rates kept artificially low - this administration has taken every step that Alinsky laid out.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Over the last few years we have seen countless times where Obama and his minions would make a phony offer to Republicans that sounds really great, but includes a poison pill to insure Republicans would say "no". This allowed Obama to blame Republicans for on\bstructing just about everything.

ObamaCare had a few good things in it, but tons of bad things. When Republicans balked at trhe bad things, Democrats would accuse them of wanting people to die.

Same thing happened in the fight overr the debt ceiling. And again over the sequester.

Well, now it seems that what goes around, comes around, as Vladimir Putin is doing the same thing to Obama. First, he offers to get Syria to give up its chemical weapons, and when Obama grabs for that lifeline, Putin snaps it back, saying he will only do that if Obama swears not to attack Syria, regardless of the eventual outcome.

As President, Obama simply cannot agree to taking military action off the table. So, it ends up with Putin looking like he TRIED to do a good thing, and WANTED to, but that big, bad President Obama refused to cooperate.

Sound familiar? I wonder how Obama likes being on the receiving end of such subterfuge! He and the Democrats have been pulling that sort of thing on Republicans for years. I once posted a story about this sort of thing in 2010, concerning a land I called "Pindarovia".

Putin's stature rises in the world, while America's stature shrinks...

Monday, September 9, 2013

If you are not aware of the moves the left iis making that are ruining our children and their chances for success, then you simply are not awake.

A child works hard to be the best at soccer. But the game does not permit scoring, as that would somehow shame the losers. So, everyone wins. Except, of course, the children who actually work hard at it. They receive no sense of fulfillment or accomplishment. They get the same reward as the child who spent his time playing video games and eating Twinkies. So the child grows up believing that it does not pay to work hard at anything, or to be better.

Lefties all over the country are banning things like dodge-ball at school. They say it is to protect the children (none of whom have ever suffered any real injuries from dodge-ball). But in their misguided effort to "protect" the children, they are robbing them of the essential need to compete, and to become strong. Dodge-ball, King-of-the-Hill and other such games teach our children the value of becoming strong, and how to strive for what you want. I'll bet the soldiers who stormed the hill on Iwo Jima and raised the flag had learned a lot from having played King-Of-The-Hill.

The uber-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that parents have no right to decide what type of instructions their children get on sex, or when they should receive such instruction. They also decided that a child as young as 12 could get an abortion without informing the parents.

Teachers in many states no longer grade a child's paper or test, for fear of causing shame. I guess no one ever told the idiots on the left that "shame" is a strong motivational factor that actually HELPS people to improve.

Over the last few years there have been literally hundreds of such instances where the left has taken actions designed for the sole purpose of weakening the strong, to create a level playing field for the weak. That is back-asswards. We are supposed to be strengthening the weak, not weakening the strong.

Political correctness and the wussification of America has gone too far. If you are unwilling to stand against the onslaught of the left to destroy our children, then you get what you deserve - a nation of weaklings that will never again be great.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

I must say I am more than just a little confused. Former Congressman Joe Walsh made some comments that liberals - in particular, the far-left Huffington Post - calls "racist rant". But when I read those comments, what I see is a person who has the best interest of African Americans at heart. Here is what he said - you decide if it is "racist", or if you think, as do I, that HuffPost and far-left liberals are race-baiters trying to divide our nation.

Walsh's "rant":

I have a dream that all black parents will have the right to choose where
their kids attend school.

I have a dream that all black boys and girls will grow up with a
father.

I have a dream that young black men will stop shooting other young black
men.

I have a dream that all young black men will say "no" to gangs and to
drugs.

I have a dream that all black young people will graduate from high
school.

I have a dream that young black men won't become fathers until after they're
married and they have a job.

I have a dream that young unmarried black women will say "no" to young black
men who want to have sex.

I have a dream that today's black leadership will quit blaming racism and
"the system" for what ails black America.

I have a dream that black America will take responsibility for improving
their own lives.

I have a dream that one day black America will cease their dependency on the
government plantation, which has enslaved them to lives of poverty, and instead
depend on themselves, their families, their churches, and their
communities.

Exzcuse me for saying so, HuffPost, but it sounds to me like YOU, not Walsh, are the racists. If Walsh's "dream" were to come to fruition, racism in American would virtually disappear, and black children and families would have an equal shot at the best things in life. If it is racist to want minorities to have a better life, then I guess I, too, am a racist.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Everywhere you look these days you will see homes being foreclosed, people filing bankruptcy and an increasing number of folks on government assistance. It never used to be this way - before the 1970's when liberal thought began taking hold on America, people were more involved in their efforts to use their resources wisely. They would use something that is disappearing today - a household BUDGET. And they would go without rather than place their families in financial jeopardy.

Today, however, we live in a society that is all about DIG debt. I call it DIG debt for two reasons - it is an acronym for "Debt for Instant Gratification". It seems everyone wants everything now, and "I'll pay for it later." Maybe. The other reason it is called DIG debt is because it effectively digs a hole for the consumer to fall into that he may not be able to extract himself from.

To protect your family and have the best shot at remaining financially solvent, I suggest everyone follow the 10-20-30-40 rule. It's simple, and it works. Of every dollar you earn, the very first 10% goes into savings - pay yourself first. That will become your "anchor" and safety margin. Then 20% of every dollar should pay all consumer debt - car loans, credit cards etc. If you are paying more than 20% of your income to consumer debt, you need to reduce it now. You can learn how to do this easily by visiting this page on a consumer debt plan, or the debt plan in the free Credit Repair Guide. by clicking the button on the IntelliBiz home page. (There is a LOT of free stuff at intellibiz.com).

The next 30% should cover all other expenses, including food, clothing, medical, entertainment etc. If spending more than that, it is time to start tracking, day-to-day, where the money is going, and make cuts accordingly.For example, if lunches at work are costing you $7 per day, consider brown-bagging it. Or cut out the Starbucks.

The remaining 40% is for shelter. This includes more than rent or mortgage payments - it includes any and all maintenance, insurance and property taxes.

By adhereing to the 10-20-30-40 rule, not only will you be more likely to be financially solvent, but you will find your wealth is growing. That 10% you save? Once it grows to a sufficient amount, invest it for a return. Let it grow. And the peace of mind that comes with stability is priceless!

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make their livings on racial issues and social unrest, so they make it a point to stoke the fires of racism at every opportunity. That, in my book, makes them the most racist people in America. Worse than that, they profit from it.

But there are others, under the guise of authority, who also push the buttons of racism, but in a more subtle manner - which makes them even more dangerous. People like Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder prosecuted 4 race cases where the victims were black, but refused to prosecute a case where the victims were white. And today he is giving a speech before the NAACP using racism - in a subtle way - to inflame people protesting the Zimmerman verdict.

One of the worst points in American history was slavery, and how black Americans were treated from Day One until recently. Yes, racism was a problem , but recently it has become a minor issue. I can say that because only 12% of America is black, but more than half of all Americans voted for Obama - TWICE!

And I contend that the ONLY reason racism still exists at all in America is because the racist haters like Sharpton and Jackson keep stoking the flames. They keep it alive. They make sure no one forgets, or forgives. They make certain that the low information American believes racism is a major issue when in fact it is not.

And until those low information Americans - mostly liberals and blacks - get wise to the fact that the Sharptons of the world are preying on them, and the Democrats are keeping them in a state of dependence, then nothing will change.

It's time they wised up. That is, if they REALLY want to end racism in America.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

There are over 300 million guns in Anerica, yet only .00033% of guns were used in homicides in the U.S. in 2010. So guns may not be the real problem.

Here is a quote from the new book "CONTROL" by Glenn Beck (who actually did painstaking research on the issue):

"Five thousand years of recorded history. Five hundred years of gunpowder combat. One hundred fifty years of repeating firearms. Yet, despite it all, no one can find a single case, anywhere in the world, where a juvenile committed a multiple homicide in a school prior to 1975. Common sense tells us that maybe this isn't about the gun after all."

No, it's not about guns. It's about liberals who want more control over the masses, and want to make sure we cannot resist.

As to the "why" of recent incidents involving children with guns in school, perhaps we should look at Glenn's quote once more. 5000 years and yet the first school shooting by a juvenile did not occur until 1975. Does that ring a bell?

It seems that these incidents began shortly after America took a sharp left turn in the 1960's. Hippies, drugs, but most notably the (then liberal) United States Supreme Court made two decisions that virtually guaranteed our society would decline - Roe vs Wade and kicking God out of schools and public view.

Every child since then has grown up in a culture where there is no sanctity of life - it was only luck that his or her mother allowed him or her to be born. And without public support of religion and religious ethics, those same children have no moral anchor. And hardly a day has gone by since those decisions when our children are not faced with public debate on abortion, making it even more likely that some of those children will place no value on human life.

And when a child places no value on human life, and fears no God, it's only a matter of time...

Thursday, June 27, 2013

As you probably know by now, Paula Deen has lost her job, her career is tumbling out of control, and she has spent the last several days apologizing to the world for using the dreaded "N" word thirty years ago.

Paula Deen should NOT have apologized to ANYONE. Here's why...

The only time an apology is due is when you say or do something that harms one or more people. You do NOT owe an apology for simply "offending" someone. Ms. Deen's inappropriate language did not harm even one of the people who have demanded an apology. Not a one. Nor did it harm the Food Network. In fact, none of them had even known about her use of the "N" word until she brought it up 30 years later.

No one should ever apologize for simply offending someone else. Liberals - usually the ones demanding people spend their lives groveling and apologizing for this or that - have an inherent need to have power over others. It is mostly liberals who pass laws that give government power over us (like zoning laws). And putting people on their knees, apologizing to others, empowers liberals. Nothing makes a liberal happier than to exercise power over another by forcing them into subservience. That is why they push welfare on the poor, and pass laws that violate our freedoms (have you ever encountered a Homeowner's Association that prohibits flying a flag, or having a block party? Then you have encountered little liberals trying to be big).

But here is a newsflash, folks - if, as liberals believe, we should apologize for offending someone else, then every single one of us would spend our entire lives groveling and apologizing, because every one of us is guilty of offending someone, somewhere, every minute of the day.

Are you a Christian? Your very existence offends Muslims. Are you American? You would not believe how many people THAT offends - even some other Americans, like Sean Penn or Danny Glover. And if you believe in a right to life, you offend pro-abortion folks (and vice versa). If you eat meat, you offend vegetarians. If you think collecting welfare is a career choice, you offend those who pay taxes.You cannot exist without offending someone.

And that is precisely why you should never apologize for merely being offensive. The only time to apologize is when your words or deeds cause harm, and even then you only owe an apology to THAT person. You do not owe an apology to the world. If you use the "N" word to describe someone, then you owe THAT person an apology, but you do NOT owe an apology to the world.

Paula Deen never caused me harm. She does not owe me an apology. Nor you. Nor the Food Network. Nor any of the people calling for her head.

John Wayne almost had it right in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" when he said, "Never apologize, Corporal - it's a sign of weakness."

I would change that to, "Never apologize to anyone you have not harmed - it's a sign of weakness."

And I would particularly not apologize to anyone, ever, for being who I am. And neither should you.

The Senate is currently getting ready to push through a bogus "immigration reform" bill that will do absolutely nothing to reform immigration. That's because a) DHS reserves the right to NOT build the fence required, b) 19,600 new border agents would not even begin to get hired until 2017, and c) there is no accountability to ensure things get done. In other words, it's 1986 all over again - promises of securing the border, but promises that do not have to be kept.

Here is true immigration reform, and it is incredibly simple...

1) Any immigrant who wants to come here to work will be allowed to come through the front door and have a work visa, provided they pass a records check and get immunized. Since honest, working immigrants are welcome through the font gate, this would assure that any immigrant "sneaking" over the border is coming for nefarious purposes (drugs, terrorism etc.), so...

2) The border must be made secure, and anyone found sneaking in will be assumed to be a criminal or terrorist and imprisoned until he/she can be deported.

E-Verify should be mandatory, to insure the "working" immigrant is actually seeking employment.

Simple. Then let us see which Democrats are willing to NOT secure the border FIRST, knowing that only criminals and terrorists would be sneaking in. What excuse would Democrats have? How could they defend the choice to not secure the border?

I would certainly like to hear the whacky, convoluted excuses they would use to be able to keep the borders porous...

Friday, June 21, 2013

In 1640, America had it's very first slave - a man by the name of John Punch. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln put forth the Emancipation Proclamation which was to end slavery in America.

But in 1965, slavery was reintroduced to America, and millions of people - predominantly minorities - have fallen victim to the new culture of American Slavery.

Let's take a closer look...

As an example, picture the typical southern plantation in 1830. The plantation owner provided food, clothing and shelter to the plantation slaves. In return, the slaves performed as the masters wanted. Slaves were denied education. Got the picture?

In 1965 president Lyndon B Johnson reintroduced slavery by creating his "welfare state" known as his War on Poverty. 15% of Americans, predominantly black, were in poverty. Today, nearly 50 years and trillions of dollars later, the poverty rate is still 15%, mostly blacks. In other words, trillions in welfare has done nothing to reduce poverty. Nothing!

Today, the federal government (i.e. the Great Plantation) provides food, clothing and shelter to the impoverished (slaves). These people are also denied a proper education, whereas liberal Democrats refuse to allow school vouchers that would provide better education.

In other words, these liberal Democrats, who dole out the welfare and deny a good education to the "poor" - mostly blacks and hispanics - have turned them into chattel - slaves. And as long as they "perform as expected" (vote Democrat and dare not better themselves) the freebies will continue.

Those who are "career" welfare recipients are slaves. They have been enslaved by liberals who insist on buying their support by keeping the freebies flowing. These career welfare recipients are addicted, just as if welfare were any powerful drug.

Drug addicts are slaves to their addiction. And so are welfare addicts.

And guess what? When a black person manages to better themselves by shaking free of the chains of welfare, and he or she votes Republican, they are mocked, chastised and called every vitriolic name in the book. How dare any slave escape from the plantation!

The Democrats have done nothing but harm to minorities, yet the minorities vote for them at a rate of over 90%. And we know why - they have become addicted to sucking on the public teat at the expense of the rest of us. They have been expertly conned into giving up their future in exchange for a few food stamps and cheap Section 8 housing.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Have you ever noticed that while liberals keep trying to scam us by saying Republicans have a "war on women", or "war on the poor" etc., (none of which have any basis in fact), it is the liberals, themselves, who have been conducting a war on the poor, a war on minorities, and most importantly - a war on children.

The war on the poor & minorities is conducted by enabling them with excessive entitlements, and keeping them dependent upon the government. This literally makes slaves of them. But it is the liberals' war on children that is most dastardly!

It is a fact that liberals are the ones who push unfettered abortions (and this is not just a war on children, but also on minorities since most aborted babies are minorities). Since Roe vs Wade, 54,559,615 babies have been deprived of the right to live. That's almost 55 million, folks. But even that does not show the true nature of liberals.

A 10 year old girl is dying, in need of a lung transplant. Because she is a child, she was denied new lungs. When the parents asked HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to help, she simply said, "someone lives, someone dies", in a callous, thoughtless, heartless diatribe as to why she, the most powerful person in the health care sector, said she could do nothing.

Thank God a federal judge decided HE could do something, and gave the girl the right to a transplant. You can bet the judge was not a liberal.

The point here is that liberals have no use for children - at least, not other people's children. They abort them, deny them equal medical care, and ruin their sense of independence and accomplishment by taking away their incentive to do better in school by making sure ALL children get equally rewarded for EFFORT rather than ACCOMPLISHMENT. Children are denied the right to grow strong through competition. Even dodgeball is outlawed.

On the news last night I heard a middle-school girl tell the journalist that her (liberal) teacher taught her that America is taking over smaller countries that are too poor and weak to defend themselves. Really? Liberals are brainwashing the children, in schools and universities nationwide.

And now we find out that some schools - run by liberals - have secretly conducted retinal scans on the kids. For all we know, they are collecting DNA, too.

Yes, my friend, the liberals are, indeed, waging war on our children. Maybe it is time to wage war on liberals.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "America is a nation of cowards."

While I seriously disagree with that statement - America is always the first to stand in the face of disaster and tryanny (until recently) - Holder's statement shows what those on the left not only believe, but what they wish to be true.

Take the Benghazi scandal as an example. Someone issued a "stand down" order that resulted in Americans being murdered. Those on the left - including Panetta, Hillary Clinton and Obama - believe that was the right decision because had we sent in help, "other American lives could have been lost."

That is the cowards outlook. America, however, has NEVER left its people behind without a fight! But liberals believe we should. They believe it is more important to run and hide than to stand and fight.

Those on the left say other lives MIGHT HAVE been lost. MIGHT HAVE!!! Again, that is how cowards look at any fight. They do not even think that maybe, just maybe, instead of LOSING more lives we might have SAVED lives. That never occurs to them. Again, cowards on the left. What if instead of landing at Normandy we had instead decided to stay home, for fear that American lives would be lost? What if, on 9/11 the First Responders had decided to just stand back and watch, for fear of losing their lives?

Eric Holder is true to the liberal line of thinking. It is he and his kind, not America, who are the cowards. Hell, they are even afraid to tell the truth about anything!

Monday, May 13, 2013

I have never seen anything like this! The United States of America now has a President who not only does not know what leadership is, but does not know much of anything at all that goes on in his administration.

Just in recent months, our president stated he did not know who attacked our consulate in Benghazi, does not know who gave the order to "stand down", and does not know who gave Susan Rice her talking points. And just since Friday, he has stated he knew nothing about the IRS breaking federal law by targeting conservatives for political purposes, and he knows nothing about the Justice Department seizing phone records from the Associated Press without explanation.

I gotta ask - if, as the liberals claim, Obama is SO intelligent, why is it he knows NOTHING of what goes on in his own administration, or even in the White House?

There are only two possibilities - either Obama and his administration are completely corrupt, or they are completely incompetent. But in either case, they certainly should not be in any position of power higher than that of Road Kill Clean-Up Crew.

I do not believe Obama and his minions are incompetent. I think they are typical, corrupt Chicago thugs.